|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1686 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <DanLanglois: Per <whatthefat> pointed out, your enthusiasm and exuberance hinders communication. Try to slow it down a little. You are sometimes too fast to respond, giving the impression that you aren't a good listener and maybe are inattentive to details.> Tell you what, I'll give this some thought. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <<sentriclecub: I say that the eval number 6.26 represents the score of the move 59...Rc7> Yes you are 100% true. > gads EVERYBODY has caved on this? signing off :-)
|
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <sentriclecub: <EACH POSITION along the line you quoted form RV has valuation 6.26> 100% correct
yes as a heuristic, see the "short answer though" post I didn't read anything below the line that I quoted. I'm out.
>
100% correct yes as a heuristic, I dunno, I think what you are saying that that we can use a number any way we like, appropriately, or inappropriately. In which case, I agree. Not a very telling point? Am I the only one who wants this usage of the term 'heuristic' retired? The word heuristic has everything to do with abandoning goals, I'll just say that. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <MostlyAverageJoe: <DanLanglois: <sentriclecub: The eval number is a HEURISTIC for move 66 and it is a HEURISTIC for move 59...Rc7> BTW if you insist on using the term heuristic at all, then I will correct your usage, and contradict you here, sorry.>
Bwah, hah, hah, so he used HEURISTIC as a short for "result of a heuristic method". Big deal, anyone familiar with the vernacular can understand what he meant. He is still correct and you're not.
>
Well, yes, I was criticizing him for using HEURISTIC as a short for 'result of a heuristic method', although actually I was only THREATENING to criticize him, because of course I am familiar with the vernacular and understood what he meant. But when I said I <will correct your usage, and contradict you here>, I meant that I would do two seperate things: correct usage, AND contradict. Bwah, hah, hah. The eval number is a HEURISTIC for move 59...Rc7. Or, as I might prefer, a NUMBER for move 59...Rc7. & the number for move 66 is a different one, which is obtained easily enough (although we can just make one up, or use the move#59 number, if we like). |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <sentriclcub: I really hope that you understand you're not wrong in substance. I like both your receptiveness and skepticism of numbers! Everybody should always be both.> gosh this is very kind, really. Thanks. I'll have to look at that book. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | ste10987: Why do people want to resign? we are clearly winning |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: <kamalakanta:>
You are right. Black is truly lost. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <<DanLanglois: <sentriclcub: Short answer though, (ignoring the long post) is that the eval number is a DEFINITE measurement of a FEN well beyond move 66.> This is what's just outrageously wrong :-)> No, it is not. This has been explained to you multiple times -- when Rybka or Fritz says "12 ply", what they really mean is "12 ply baseline". Certain individual lines may be extended well past 12-ply. > I'm going to budge on this, as it seems we have been talking past each other on one little point. Which is, that I don't care how the number is generated, I want to know what is its use? Calling it a DEFINITE MEASUREMENT of something about which I don't care in the least, strikes me as outrageous, although I now think I understand what it is that impresses people so much about this point, which is that it is not precisely, as I called it, outrageously false (actualy I called it outrageously wrong, which was rather cryptic of me). There is a grain of truth in it. Sure, the number comes from somewhere. This point is not lost on me. However, that is a misleading point, when it comes to making proper use of the number. I dunno this has been very trying (not for me, really, but I wonder if the discussion will really yield any productive improvement in teamwork), so I'll let it go for now. Certainly, I'm not quibbling about whether the computer looks deeper than move 66, or whatever, c'mon :-) |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: Can someone please explain to me what this argument is all about? |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: <White has a theoretically won game.> The very best White move is <57.Re4>. The game is expected to follow this course:
<57...Rc6 58.Rb5+ Kd6 59.Rxh5> Please see my forum for more details. Thanks!
|
|
| Jul-13-08 | | sentriclecub: <Artar1> We're trying to help DanL out. I was only in for about 45 minutes but opted out right away and made my intentions known. It started out as a very beneficial discussion about how our team must be able to rapidly assess a distant move in a case like 38. h4 where if next to the last minute, a winning line is found, about bringing all team-members to the same ability to (if it is in fact a winning line) to rapidly test it, and if necessary how to spread that information in case a wide margin of votes needs to be shifted in a short period of time. If everybody understands sliding analysis, then we could answer to the skeptics using the lingo of sliding analysis. However, DanL got in a 10 page debate about semantics. However, I can tell he's on the verge of "seeing it" and being able to understand everything of the past 25 pages that we've been trying to communicate. The topic has had ups and downs, but as a whole, a very good read. The direction of the argument never went the path I hoped, but I'm afraid its way too drawn out on the detail "what does an eval number mean?". |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | sentriclecub: Additionally, I'm going to save the page numbers, as this will be good reference material. MAJ has answered so many questions that other people might have, during his discourse with DanL. Everyone who followed along learned a couple things, since so many people contributed. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <sentriclecub: <Artar1> We're trying to help DanL out.> I'm the one being generous, I think. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <sencriclecub>, well, I don't want to question anybody's intentions. However, I had thought this was all put to bed, & I had won my points. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | ravel5184: 57. Re4 for the list |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <sentriclecub: It started out as a very beneficial discussion about how our team must be able to rapidly assess a distant move in a case like 38. h4 where if next to the last minute, a winning line is found, about bringing all team-members to the same ability to (if it is in fact a winning line) to rapidly test it, and if necessary how to spread that information in case a wide margin of votes needs to be shifted in a short period of time.> That certainly sounds like a benificial discussion to have, one that I admit suggesting that we have. The discussion about how to properly use an eval number is one that I have characterized as not necessarily having any practical application. It just seems silly that people should be using eval numbers wrong. using them wrong isn't exactly what I mean--the numbers are used to choose move, which is right use. But a crystal clear understanding of the fact that a line does not get an eval number, only the first move of the line, does tend, I have noticed, to be in the possession of the best forward/backward sliders. I don't think you realize that I put myself in this category, emphatically. You may have noticed that Tabanus, a major expert on engine use, dropped in to back me up in this debate. Also, simply stirring the pot about engine use, is probably a good way to employ down time. It's really not possible for people to stay w/it on this team, without turning their attention to the question--how are engines properly used? Where is the best methodology defined? Can I do something different/better here? We may not have even stumbled upon the actual PROPER style of forward sliding (but we might manage it). |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: wow. this is quite a paragraph. wow. Apparently, I've been wasting my time? <sentriclecub: If everybody understands sliding analysis, then we could answer to the skeptics using the lingo of sliding analysis. > I like this goal of everybody understanding sliding analysis. As I have recently pointed out, I don't really think any of us is in a position to say that he does. To me, sliding analysis is an 'interesting issue', in addition to being a skill which some have developed, to some greater-or-lesser extent. <However, DanL got in a 10 page debate about semantics. > You know, it really does take two to argue. And if we can argue about the detail "what does an eval number mean?", then that is an argument that should probably happen. We don't agree on this? The questions only get harder. <However, I can tell he's on the verge of "seeing it" and being able to understand everything of the past 25 pages that we've been trying to communicate. > Dude, I see it. I haven't changed any of my views. I've tried to be generous, but it is MostlyAverageJoe who is apparently on the verge. I could let him save face, but he's a Phd :-) |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: I have perhaps not tried so very hard to be generous :0) |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | sentriclecub: <DanL> I'm trying to guide your curiosity in the right direction. I have no personal interest in the topic, as I have a good technical knowledge which is satisfactory enough for me. And yes, I agreed with the substance of your points. I have fully made the mental connection between chess and numbers, which is why my interest in correspondence chess is different than my otb chess (which I play the same style as poker or any board game). Ultimately I'm fascinated with the principle of unlimited marginal gain by increased team sizes, because you can categorize and subcategorize variations (like the idea of assigning analysts to a node). I feel like you are just a millimeter away from the chess eval understanding which you caught a glimpse of and spurred your pursuit towards being enlightened. Specifically the post where you said you were trying to get rid of your predispositions because you started to agree with the rationale of sliding analysis. I saw in your posts that you saw some amazing potential insight and embarked on a quest to unearth it. |
|
Jul-13-08
 | | rinus: <DanLanglois>
<I've tried to be generous> <I have perhaps not tried so very hard to be generous :0)> More options? |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <Tabanus: So when the engine evaluates the position it evaluates the possible moves that can be made from it, in our case with 57.Re4 as best.
Haha. Is this new insight? Hardly :)>
<Tabanus: <Dan> I think this is well known to most engine operators.> |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | DanLanglois: <sentriclecub: I have fully made the mental connection between chess and numbers> hey, that's a great way to put it--I think you've hit the nail on the head! |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | sentriclecub: Well, its easier the way I did it. I'm a very talented person when it comes to understanding numbers. I only had the task to apply from "left to right" the numbers-chess connection. It would be much harder to go in the opposite direction (apply chess to numbers). |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | chesscard: There is not much analysis and chess fever on this board has subsided. I don't think that GMT has the right to keep this board busy in this position. This is becoming "DMD". (dead man's defense) You should move on and start a new game, and send him some analysis and (politely) ask for a resignation. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | ontocaustic: he should get the idea, some dumbass left a rude comment on his page |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1686 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
